This is quite pointless because it essentially cancels out
This is ultimately what makes this so bizarre -- in the end such a chain has a single "benefactor", and then a number of what could best be described as victims: People who become a part of this process because of social obligation. Given that the people were already in line and obviously ready to pay for their order, this is unwelcome generosity, and it takes advantage of the law of reciprocity in many cultures.
This sounds really cynical, and I suppose it is, but I see nothing heart warming about Western culture in these acts. If someone randomly paid for other people's food, that is one thing, but what we're reading about now are people obligating the people behind them to pay for the people behind them, essentially trying to become a part of something -- the initiator -- for little.
If I pull up to Tim Hortons and just want a coffee and a donut, having to understand and then orchestrate the chain is not something I was looking for, and in the end I've gained nothing.
I strongly disagree that it's worth nothing. In terms of money, sure, someone paid extra, and someone got free stuff, with the bunch intermediaries.
But isn't it true that we collectively spend our lives chasing the ghost of connection, goodwill, and meaning? Don't you think that lacking those is one of the major "bugs" in western society?
So now we have a chain of people who get to participate in an act that brings them together, makes them part of a small "community," and allows to them to exercise both generosity and gratitude.
I think that's extremely valuable, and that someone has figured out how to do that for such a small price is pretty smart.
If you want evidence that my position is closer to reality than yours, consider how strongly stories like this resonate with people, and ask yourself why that's the case.
Which part of society is obligating a person to continue paying it forward? Certainly not the previous customer, who has already driven off. And certainly not the following customer, who (if you don't pay it forward) has no way of knowing that you got your food for free.
In fact other than you, the only person who knows the situation is the cashier, and they certainly aren't expecting meals to continue to be paid forward - the articles on the topic always mention how surprised they are when it happens. And to be honest I don't understand your social compass if being judged by a random restaurant cashier is that big a burden on your conscience.
And to be honest I don't understand your social compass if being judged by a random restaurant cashier is that big a burden on your conscience.
My moral compass is not dictated by the presence of witnesses. If I'm at a park and no one is there to witness it, I still dispose of trash properly. I pick up after my dog without scurrilously looking around for other people.
One's "moral compass" should be internal, and might also be considered like karma. Most people do things because they believe it is right, not because they are being judged (though there are those people in this world, and they are the ones who dent and run and leave a big doggy steamer cooking in your yard). And in Western society one of the biggest burdens you can drop on someone is the sense of reciprocity.
Ok, that makes a lot of sense, but then I don't understand what you mean by "people obligating the people behind them to pay for the people behind them".
If your moral compass is based on what you believe internally, I don't see how you are being obliged to do something by someone else if that person has no knowledge of whether you did it or not.
it's a good point that if I'm in line and have a cheap order and feel under pressure to pay it forward I might end up paying a few times my order. It pays to be mindful if you're hard up, and be able to say no!
This is ultimately what makes this so bizarre -- in the end such a chain has a single "benefactor", and then a number of what could best be described as victims: People who become a part of this process because of social obligation. Given that the people were already in line and obviously ready to pay for their order, this is unwelcome generosity, and it takes advantage of the law of reciprocity in many cultures.
This sounds really cynical, and I suppose it is, but I see nothing heart warming about Western culture in these acts. If someone randomly paid for other people's food, that is one thing, but what we're reading about now are people obligating the people behind them to pay for the people behind them, essentially trying to become a part of something -- the initiator -- for little.
If I pull up to Tim Hortons and just want a coffee and a donut, having to understand and then orchestrate the chain is not something I was looking for, and in the end I've gained nothing.